|
They are going to be in for a fun time in 5 years when 2008 happens again
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:They are going to be in for a fun time in 5 years when 2008 happens again They'll probably have some cushy lobbying job FYGM
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:yeah this doesnt really address the quota systems per country and whatnot though. i dont' think it's just 9800 per country max, full stop, but that's the only thing i've seen from cursory looking around The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 originally set limits on how many regular immigrants (excluding exempt categories like refugees, relatives of citizens/residents, etc) were to be permitted per country, depending on which hemisphere the country in question was from (170,000 from the Eastern, 120,000 from the Western). The hemispheric distinction was done away with in 1976, with the total visas to be allotted set at 290,000, no more than 20,000 to come from any given nation. Both caps were adjusted incrementally until the next major overhaul came with the Immigration Act of 1990, which set overall total to about 700,000ish (initially 700,000 total until 1994, when the cap dropped to 675,000), with the per-country limit set at 7% of the total allowed in for a given year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:They are going to be in for a fun time in 5 years when 2008 happens again 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
i wouldnt be shocked if the banks are somehow in on cryptocurrency yes, i know its 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 originally set limits on how many regular immigrants (excluding exempt categories like refugees, relatives of citizens/residents, etc) were to be permitted per country, depending on which hemisphere the country in question was from (170,000 from the Eastern, 120,000 from the Western). The hemispheric distinction was done away with in 1976, with the total visas to be allotted set at 290,000, no more than 20,000 to come from any given nation. Both caps were adjusted incrementally until the next major overhaul came with the Immigration Act of 1990, which set overall total to about 700,000ish (initially 700,000 total until 1994, when the cap dropped to 675,000), with the per-country limit set at 7% of the total allowed in for a given year. sweet thank you. where'd you find this
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:sweet thank you. where'd you find this It's from Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants from 1882, by Roger Daniels. I took a US Immigration History class back in grad school, and had it lying around from that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It's from Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants from 1882, by Roger Daniels. I took a US Immigration History class back in grad school, and had it lying around from that. Ha, ok. It's unsurprising that actual numbers aren't really bandied about because they're impossible to use in sound bites
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Ha, ok. It's unsurprising that actual numbers aren't really bandied about because they're impossible to use in sound bites Yeah, it's from several different places in the book and cannot be easily summed up as it draws from several complicated pieces of immigration legislation, with many attendant modifications and hotfixes patched on here or there to deal with contingencies and unforeseen consequences (the addition of Temporary Protected Status in the 1990 Act, for instance).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Lock them up
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:realtalk: what is the USA's actual legal immigration framework? It's some # of permit slots issued to each country and they usually don't max those out, but the numbers are super complicated and no one in the media or politics actually knows theM? do you have a close relative or spouse who's a US citizen? if so, you can start the green card process with them as a sponsor, and get the green card in a few months or years depending on exact relationship are you a skilled worker, preferably with an advanced degree or rare qualifications? do you already have a job lined up with a US company who's willing to sponsor you? in that case, you get the green card after a decade or so. also, if you lose your job and find a new one, the clock starts over are you a multimillionaire? congrats, you get the "investors" visa. are you an executive in a international company, or a Nobel Prize winner? you get the priority workers visa. both visas will get you a green card in six months if you don't fall into any of those categories, and you can't make a credible claim for political asylum or refugee status, your only hope is to apply to the diversity visa lottery. this program gives out up to 50,000 visas a year. note that although it's called a lottery, it's not a totally random pick - it gives fewer slots to regions that a lot of immigrants come from, and a number of countries are totally excluded from this program. if you get picked in the diversity lotto, that's when the real fun begins: although there's only 50k visas available, more than 100k people are chosen in the lottery. the first 50k people to get their paperwork in order and navigate their way through the bureaucracy get green cards, the rest are automatically rejected as soon as the last visa is given out. if you survived administrative thunderdome, you can come to the US, and can usually get your green card within a few months you can naturalize and become a US citizen after having the green card for five years, assuming you can pass literacy and civics tests and don't give them any reason to doubt your "moral character"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
I really can't imagine why the article's thumbnail shows Warren. She features prominently in it, but as an opposing force to the people referenced in the headline. It seems misleading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I really can't imagine why the article's thumbnail shows Warren. She features prominently in it, but as an opposing force to the people referenced in the headline. It seems misleading. Seems like Warren is telling Heitkamp to stop being a loving stooge, and Heitkamp is crouching under the table to check up on her stocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Serf posted:smuggling stuff in your prosthetic leg is an extremely powerful move, and one that i have done myself on occasion You lost your leg to razor wire? I thought it was just a foot! Also what'd you put in there, now I wanna know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
I hope Mark Warner dies soon
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
........but will keeping bank regulations in place fix racism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Love it when my Democratic politicians are former "businessmen/businesswomen"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:They are going to be in for a fun time in 5 years when 2008 happens again We all will be because BERNIE will be president then and he'll just nationalize all the banks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
it's gonna own to watch bernie mitteranders become president and capitulate to the neoliberal order with breathtaking alacrity
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Love it when my Democratic politicians are former "businessmen/businesswomen" I can't recall specifics any more, but I remember when Mark Warner was running for governor of Virginia and it had to be pointed out that the thing he used to make his fortune wasn't illegal at the time he did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:That's what IdPol is. You want to make sure the voters aren't voting for policy positions, those are hard to defend for Dems (because their policies are garbage). The idea is to present the "identity" of the politician above all else. Vote for the megalomaniacal war-mongering woman, why? Because she is a woman. Vote for the black dude, he's from Chicago. Vote for the Veteran, don't you support the troops? Pay no attention to their policies and don't you dare compare their policies to the opposition party, or to anyone else running. Think about how brave you are for supporting the status quo but through the eyes of the amputee. It always makes me lol when people forget this and sorta rail against using identify as political in all its form. It's fine, and useful, as a compliment since it actually works, evidenced by insane cults around hillary, etc. As it's wielded by loser dems is just bad. ate poo poo on live tv posted:That was the saddest thing that showed just how performative and shallow the dems are. In a better world all of them would be primaried from the left. Taintrunner posted:That amazing sit-in for using the No-Fly List, which is a secret list of 80,000+ people that are mostly names that sound just a little too Muslim, in order to prohibit firearm purchases. Yeah, race based constitutional rights denial is incredibly Woke, yes sir It was so good for how unbelievably transparent it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:it's gonna own to watch bernie mitteranders become president and capitulate to the neoliberal order with breathtaking alacrity Weird how people get defeatist when the man will be able to have the DEA raid Wall Street. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
The fine senator from Virginia needs all the financial favors he can get in order to transplant his brain into a cybernetic dog and become his true self, Bark Warner
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:it's gonna own to watch bernie mitteranders become president and capitulate to the neoliberal order with breathtaking alacrity Your reactionary lack of faith in the revolution is noted, comrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Your reactionary lack of faith in the reformist is noted, comrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:it's gonna own to watch bernie mitteranders become president and capitulate to the neoliberal order with breathtaking alacrity He already did  
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
It's OUR revolution. Ours, not yours. No, Houthi, not u.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Bernie would wield his army of drones (or BernieBots (TM) ) against the true enemies of this nation; the banks, the wealthy elites, anyone whose Suck Zone posts I don't like, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:He already did Bernie’s foreign policy is probably gonna disappoint a lot of people tbh. but it’d still be better than 95% of all politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
really queer Christmas posted:Bernie’s foreign policy is probably gonna disappoint a lot of people tbh. but it’d still be better than 95% of all politicians. He would probably take a nice hammer to Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
ppl dont give keith ellison enough poo poo for his idiotic cheerleading for the hillarywar in libya
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
How many fewer countries will the US have troops in after Bernie's first term?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
69
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
There are no politicians with actual good foreign policy positions. There just aren't any at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
0
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How many fewer countries will the US have troops in after Bernie's first term? Probably 5 to 10 tbh if he has a cooperative congress
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How many fewer countries will the US have troops in after Bernie's first term? all of them because Bernie's first term will result in the dissolution of the united states
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:all of them because Bernie's first term will result in the dissolution of the united states I'm glad
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:00
|
|
